Quote Originally Posted by GrifTheGreat View Post
Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false).
Actually, this is a myth. The person who claimed it did not actually visit Darwin on his deathbed, and never even met him. It's an urban legend like "Cops undercover have to tell you they're a cop if asked".

If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.
We have tons of missing links, showing a complete gradual transition from modern man all the way back to prosimians. Neanderthals were actually the same species as us, just a different subspecies, and if properly groomed could walk by you on the street without you noticing.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.
You can test things without directly observing them (either because they're in the past, or because they're subatomic, etc). The explosion of the Big Bang can still be observed, albeit now very old and nowhere near as intense, as the comsic microwave background. We can even reconstruct unevenness in the original explosion based on irregularities in the cosmic microwave background.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinosaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little).
Actually, that's easy. We can actually cause a Xenopus tadpole to show the gut morphology or a Budgets tadpole and vice versa, just by selectively inhibiting or enhancing certain genes. And this isn't unusual, it's the norm.

Think of it like building a house. My apartment and Bill Gates' home are very similar - made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, paint, etc. The difference isn't so much the components, but how they're arranged and in what quantities. Look into Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology), it's got some amazing new advances in the evolution of gross morphological traits.

Endothermy is actually pretty easy, just a few tweaks to the mitochondria. You can turn scales into feathers with just a few shifts in gene expression patterns.

To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.
Testing evolution is part of my thesis. It's surprisingly easy. In fact, the biggest difficulty in many biological systems is trying to get the system *not* to evolve while you're in the middle of studying it.